PDA

View Full Version : Zombies: Disease or magical, which do you prefer?



krossbow
2007-01-24, 11:40 PM
In D&D, has anyone ever run zombies as the type that spread via communicable disease, ala resident evil or 28 days later (probably magical disease, like the rot from within one in arcana evolved)? Or for that matter, is there a secondary type that works like that?


Anyways, just a question: Flavorwise for D&D, which would you like to see in any campaign your in?
________
IPAD GUIDES (http://ipadguides.info)

MrNexx
2007-01-24, 11:48 PM
I think it would be a cool way to run a game, actually... though you'd need to redefine some of the metaphysics of zombiism to make it work.

Skyserpent
2007-01-24, 11:57 PM
I think a PC succumbing to Solanum would be less than heroic. Otherwise it makes a great situation to deal with for our players...

oriong
2007-01-25, 12:02 AM
Personally I don't like disease undead that most recent movies seem to be using.

With zombies and such I find it moderately acceptable but generally prefer to just keep it supernatural. I absolutely hate disease vampires.

As for a real 'zombie plague' in a D+D game I probably wouldn't mind, but of course it would still be pretty much a magical explanation. Unless it was something like the yellow musk zombies.

Krimm_Blackleaf
2007-01-25, 12:10 AM
I'm slowly making a zombie invasion campaign and I myself like magical undead more than disease undead. It's going to be lead by a group of power-hungry necromancers with a large following and magic items that increase the number of undead they command. And of course each one will have the maximum amount of animated corpses as they can muster.

This makes it so a massive horde of undead monsters won't be dealt with a few lucky turn attempts. It means there will be at least one spellcaster per at least 4 times his necromancer level.

In my opinion if you want a disease for bestial bloodthirsty undead use ghouls. People confuse ghouls and zombies far too easily.

Zincorium
2007-01-25, 01:40 AM
Disease is fine in a modern campaign, but it'd be annoying in a D&D game. First off, if it acts like a poison and does it's effect with any hp damage, a one hit die zombie could effectively get a one hit kill on a high level fighter just by rolling a luck hit. And you're facing hordes of zombies if you play by mythos. The only ones who could survive at all would be ranged types like wizards and a cleric with cure disease memorized.

Maltrich
2007-01-25, 01:46 AM
But it would make sense for the zombie to overcome the fighter... all those levels don't make him any more resistant to disease. I like it; it makes encounters more exciting. With magic-zombies, you can just wade through the horde with your magic greatsword, destroying all undead in your path. With the disease-variant, that's a one-way trip to Rot City.

oriong
2007-01-25, 02:02 AM
Actually they do. All those levels give the fighter a great Fortitude Save, which is exactly what you use to resist diseases.

You should never, ever make it so that one bite = instant zombism. That's just not how D+D is designed. The game is structured so that players are better at enduring damage (through hp) than avoiding it (through AC). If you get rid of the endurance part entirely (an insta-kill that ignores hit points) then you're messing with the system.

There should always be some way the players can avoid being killed. Through a saving throw, through healing, or what have you. No insta-zombies.

Behold_the_Void
2007-01-25, 03:50 AM
Not to mention that insta-zombie effectively destroys ANY compulsion one might have to play a fighter-type.

Thomas
2007-01-25, 05:30 AM
Ravenloft had the disease-zombies way back in AD&D times. You could outrun them, but they'd always find you.

Anyway, I generally detest the whole idea. Zombies are created by black magic. (And the infected in 28 Days Later don't even pretend to be zombies; they're no more zombies than the phoners in Stephen King's Cell.)

reorith
2007-01-25, 05:48 AM
i've played with diseased zombies (the same ability dire rats have), but not disease zombies. what is worse? prozak the barbarian is slain and reanimates in 1d4 hours, or his mangled corpse is collected and reanimated by larry the lich and then sent after the remaining party members with some ventriloquism (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/ventriloquism.htm). "come here buddy. you need a hug."

Telok
2007-01-25, 09:32 AM
I once worked up a disease based zombie for AD&D, long and long ago. Thing was, the disease was magical. It was really just a leftover from an old wizard war, dispel magic or any preservation/curing would prevent the body from reanimating. Without preventative action you had a zombie in... 12 + 3d12 hours? I don't recall exactly. I gave those zombies an extra HD and a 1d10 bite attack, they were worth about double xp too.

Simplest reason they didn't overrun the world, cremation and an Int 3. Dead people wandering around talking about brains and fresh meat just made everyone go into this "cremate the dead body" frenzy.

Ephraim
2007-01-25, 12:09 PM
In my opinion if you want a disease for bestial bloodthirsty undead use ghouls. People confuse ghouls and zombies far too easily.

Quoted for agreement. 3.x has Ghouls, Bodaks, and Mummies. Wights and Mohrgs may be this way too - I forget. They all have abilities that can infect normals and cause them to transform into that kind of undead. I think it was a conscious decision not to make Zombies work this way.

Fax Celestis
2007-01-25, 12:17 PM
If you want zombies, play All Flesh Must Be Eaten.

Koji
2007-01-25, 12:24 PM
I prefer magical zombies in D&D. It adds a sinister intent behind their creation and use. Disease is definitely scarier, but disease can't think.

Furthermore, I like arcane/alchemic style undead more, even though they're inferior. The bad guys come off as that much crazier, since they got the idea to raise the dead on their own rather than being told to do it by a god/clerical superior.

General_Ghoul
2007-01-25, 12:32 PM
In my opinion if you want a disease for bestial bloodthirsty undead use ghouls. People confuse ghouls and zombies far too easily.

Now we're talking!!!

Gamebird
2007-01-25, 12:33 PM
I prefer magical. I don't want to turn my PCs into zombies, for one thing.

Halcyon_Dax
2007-01-25, 12:49 PM
If you are looking for infectious zombieism a good and fair way to go is to have disease on bite that gives visible clues that there is a bad infection, but otherwise lays dormant until the character the is reduced to 0 HP, then they have to make another fort save or rise. Works great.

Khantalas
2007-01-25, 01:12 PM
I am on the Team Magical. Though people call Tainted Minions zombies, too, out of ignorance more than anything.

Piedmon_Sama
2007-01-25, 03:06 PM
Heh, I'm surprised it's even an issue for some people. "Radioactive Zombies" is a stock plot for one-off games in my group (well, it was in my old group. I've yet to spring it on the new one.) Change the Zombies' type to "plant" rather than Undead (subtle difference that screws the clerics), give them a bite attack that automatically transforms the victim into a zombie 1d4+Con bonus hours later, and bam, you've got Romero in your Gygax.

Bear in mind that this is just for one-off games where the players don't really expect to survive, just to see how long they can evade/outrun the ever-growing horde. In serious games, I don't really use Zombies because I don't like the way D&D represents them. They've got the worst aspects of Movie Zombies (slow, mindless) and all the disadvantages of Folklore Zombies (repelled or destroyed by magic/holy symbols) without the advantages of either.

Thomas
2007-01-25, 06:43 PM
I prefer magical. I don't want to turn my PCs into zombies, for one thing.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Come join the cult of Gark the Calm... we promise, uh, peace. Eternal peace... of mind, anyway. Or is that "pieces of minds" ?

The_Scourge
2007-01-25, 07:38 PM
I've always loved disease zombies. Magical just makes them seem.. generic. They're the undead version of orcs. When you're up against Zombies "fighting" means running away, fast. PCs shouldn't survive zombie bites, otherwise there's no threat and Joey Barbarian can just wade in and let his cleric friend cure disease later.

RandomNPC
2007-01-25, 07:46 PM
my group thinks they are movie zombies, because nobody wants to shell out enough to buy a MM, and i don't let players flip through the MM, theres nothing for players in there unless i let them make monster characters.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-01-25, 07:53 PM
Diseased just doesn't make any sense in D&D. Think about how often you see the DM critical in a game. Now translate that into "A character dies and is zombified". And this is assuming the players are so ridiculously well defended that it takes a critical to kill them, which just can't be the case unless the players are like 10 levels above the zombies, which makes it all boil down to "When is the DM going to get that lucky roll that's so obviously coming?".

Give me magical instead.

Jack Mann
2007-01-25, 08:00 PM
I'm a sucker for tradition. Give me magical zombies any day, over the modern diseased undead.

TheOOB
2007-01-25, 08:49 PM
I don't mind disease style zombies, but I wouldn't classify them as undead, as they are not sustained via negative energy, I would consider them aberrations. Make it a disease that deals cha damage, and when cha hits zero them become one.

Jorkens
2007-01-25, 09:15 PM
In general I quite like the idea of magic zombies as mindless servants of an evil wizard who just trudge around doing mundane tasks and contributing more to pathos than actual danger. But then I'm a sucker for 'the original myth' versions of pop-horror and pop-fantasy staples.

Woot Spitum
2007-01-25, 09:30 PM
Middle ground: Being bitten by a zombie doesn't turn you into one, but being slain by a zombie does.

If you feel disease zombies make being a fighter unpalateable, make the condition curable (even after full transformation). You could also allow them control over their zombified character, and give them special abilities based on hit dice (rubber limbs from the warcraft campaign setting =10ft. reach for all attacks if you're medium).

Mewtarthio
2007-01-25, 09:57 PM
Look, DnD zombies aren't the traditional movie type. They're just animated corpses that do a necromancer's dirty work. Period. Full stop. End of line. If you want movie zombies, as mentioned above, take Ghouls and Ghasts. They actively run around eating the flesh of the living, and being bitten by one causes you to grow weaker and eventually turn into one. Also, they aren't necessarily controlled by anything else.

CuthroatMcGee
2007-01-25, 10:26 PM
My problem with magical zombies is there's no potential for a zombie infestation. A magical zombie that kills someone only kills some poor Commoner and eats his brain. A diseased zombie bites a Commoner, and bang! two zombies. Make it so a zombie's bite (or scratch, or whatever) does some sort of continual poison damage every 1/2 hour or whatever, and after the character dies (maybe only from a bite's damage or the poison damage), raise them like 2d6 hours later. Maybe raise zombie's BAB enough to make them a threat to the characters (eg more than only a 20), especially in groups. That's how I would do it.

Suzaku
2007-01-25, 10:36 PM
And the poor rogue will be :smallfrown: all through out the campaign. Think of the poor rogues... PS as for traps we summon a badger or have the barbarian run through it :P

Mewtarthio
2007-01-25, 10:43 PM
My problem with magical zombies is there's no potential for a zombie infestation. A magical zombie that kills someone only kills some poor Commoner and eats his brain. A diseased zombie bites a Commoner, and bang! two zombies. Make it so a zombie's bite (or scratch, or whatever) does some sort of continual poison damage every 1/2 hour or whatever, and after the character dies (maybe only from a bite's damage or the poison damage), raise them like 2d6 hours later. Maybe raise zombie's BAB enough to make them a threat to the characters (eg more than only a 20), especially in groups. That's how I would do it.

...? Zombies don't eat brains. Zombies don't infest cities. Zombies don't pin you down in the basement of the pub with only a shotgun and a cigarette lighter. Zombies walk towards you slowly and attack you stupidly at the order of a necromancer or evil cleric. It's far easier to just adapt the Ghoul. You can even still call them "zombies" (it's not like the average Commoner knows that).

Ghouls have:

No Slow effect
A Full attack featuring two claws and a bite
A bite which infects its victims with a disease that turns them into other Ghouls.
Mild turn resistance (+2, I believe)
A built-in tougher version (the Ghast) when you want to up the power level a bit.
A hunger for the flesh of the living.Why don't they work?

Suzaku
2007-01-25, 10:48 PM
...? Zombies don't eat brains. Zombies don't infest cities. Zombies don't pin you down in the basement of the pub with only a shotgun and a cigarette lighter. Zombies walk towards you slowly and attack you stupidly at the order of a necromancer or evil cleric. It's far easier to just adapt the Ghoul. You can even still call them "zombies" (it's not like the average Commoner knows that).

Ghouls have:
No Slow effect
A Full attack featuring two claws and a bite
A bite which infects its victims with a disease that turns them into other Ghouls.
Mild turn resistance (+2, I believe)
A built-in tougher version (the Ghast) when you want to up the power level a bit.
A hunger for the flesh of the living.Why don't they work?
Because they're not slow :P

Norsesmithy
2007-01-25, 11:39 PM
And they are too intelegent, IMO.

Jack Zander
2007-01-25, 11:55 PM
Stupid intellegence... I had a DM once that ruled because the ghouls where intellegent, they could coup de grace a PC once he had been paralyzed. Nothing wrong with that thinking I suppose, except for the fact that the DM didn't like the PC and it was quite obvious as to why he was the only one who was paralyzed and coup de grace ed.

oriong
2007-01-25, 11:57 PM
Well, your DM certainly was right, there's no need for a ruling on that. Ghouls are smarter than your average human and there's no reason they don't know what their paralysis is for after all. But grudgemonsters always suck.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-25, 11:57 PM
Isn't that what you'd expect from a Ghoul anyway? Paralyze the victim, then start biting off the important parts? That's what the Paralysis is there for, right?

Ephraim
2007-01-25, 11:58 PM
We're already talking about adding a contagion ability to zombies, though. If we're okay with modifying monsters, then it is at least as easy, in my opinion, to slap a zombie's stat block on a ghoul and call it a day as it is to give zombies an ability equivalent to ghoul fever. Additionally, I think it's good for the ambiance of the game to have undead that aren't contagious (regardless of the mechanism of reanimation.)

There is also the problem that has not been discussed: If zombies are contagious, do you still allow evil clerics to use Animate Dead to create zombies? Are those zombies contagious or not? At least creating ghouls and other, more powerful undead, requires a 6th level spell.

Ultimately, I don't think that disagreement on this topic means a heck of a lot. In my experience, undead are used for the visceral, emotional impact they have on the players. Therefore, use the zombies, ghouls, ghasts, whatever that best achieve the impact you're looking for. If you have to make zombies contagious, make ghouls slow and stupid, make it so that you can unravel mummies in comical ways, etc. then do so.

(Sorry for the rant there, but it occurred to me that we're arguing over the differences between zombies and ghouls. That just seemed unnecessary to me.)

Scorpina
2007-01-25, 11:59 PM
Personally I don't like disease undead that most recent movies seem to be using.

I agree. I like my zombies (and other undead) to be animated through magical means, especially in a setting where magic already exists like a D&D game. I don't like the feel of disease zombies, it makes them seem less like undead and more like... I don't know, something else.

Of course, I also like my zombies to be thinking beings who retain their personalities, but that's just the Pratchett Factor...

Jack_Simth
2007-01-26, 12:47 AM
I'm slowly making a zombie invasion campaign and I myself like magical undead more than disease undead. It's going to be lead by a group of power-hungry necromancers with a large following and magic items that increase the number of undead they command. And of course each one will have the maximum amount of animated corpses as they can muster.

This makes it so a massive horde of undead monsters won't be dealt with a few lucky turn attempts. It means there will be at least one spellcaster per at least 4 times his necromancer level.

In my opinion if you want a disease for bestial bloodthirsty undead use ghouls. People confuse ghouls and zombies far too easily.

Clerical necromancers. Brew Potion. Animate Dead as a 3rd level spell.

Oil of Animate Dead! Any 1st level commoner with enough money can have 20 HD or more (based on caster level of the oil) of mindless undead under his command.....

You know, if you want a really big horde but not too many spellcasters.

Mewtarthio
2007-01-26, 01:24 AM
Clerical necromancers. Brew Potion. Animate Dead as a 3rd level spell.

Oil of Animate Dead! Any 1st level commoner with enough money can have 20 HD or more (based on caster level of the oil) of mindless undead under his command.....

You know, if you want a really big horde but not too many spellcasters.

Yeah. Guess what happens when those first-level commoners get targeted with any sort of spell or attack. Or what happens when they decide to use their undead for someone other than you. Or how much money and XP that ends up costing you.

John_D
2007-01-26, 05:50 AM
You know, I've always wanted to do a zombie apocalypse style adventure in D&D. Using the mob templates from DMGII and a slightly tweaked version of turn undead it could be quite interesting. I can see the PCs using turn undead attempts to forge a path through a sea of zombies....